Opinion
June 24, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowd, J.).
Interlocutory judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from and order affirmed, with one bill of costs to respondent and to defendants Bush Terminal Hardware Co., Inc., and Radiator Specialties Co., Inc., appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
A fair interpretration of the evidence supports the jury verdict rendered in plaintiff's favor as against defendant ER Quilting Corp. (hereinafter ER), the owner of the building where the accident resulting in plaintiff's injury occurred. It is well settled that an owner of a building has a duty to exercise reasonable care to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition ( Basso v. Miller, 40 N.Y.2d 233) and the issue of what precautions may reasonably be required of an owner is generally a question of fact for the jury ( see, Nallan v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 50 N.Y.2d 507). In the case at bar, the evidence, fairly interpreted, could have led the jury to reasonably conclude that ER maintained control of the subject premises, that it had notice that flammables were being stored in a room in which welding operations were conducted, that the room was inadequately ventilated, and that ER acted unreasonably in failing to take steps to prevent just the sort of accident which occurred here. Accordingly, the court properly declined to disturb the jury verdict ( Nazito v. Holton, 96 A.D.2d 550; Palermo v. Gambitsky, 92 A.D.2d 1005). Moreover, ER failed to establish that the documents which it discovered a few days after the trial could not have been timely obtained by the exercise of due diligence, since most of the documents (corporate records on file with the Secretary of State) were a matter of public record. ER, therefore, was not entitled to judgment in its favor or to a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence ( DiBernardo v Gunneson, 65 A.D.2d 828; Mully v. Drayn, 51 A.D.2d 660). Mollen, P.J., Lazer, Mangano and Brown, JJ., concur.